Daily Compliance News: July 22, 2025, The I-9 Hell Edition
Blowing the Whistle: What Employers Should Know About DEI & the False Claims Act
(Podcast) California Employment News: Creating the Report for a Workplace Investigation – Part 4 (Featured)
California Employment News: Creating the Report for a Workplace Investigation – Part 4 (Featured)
Essential Steps to Sell Your Business
Workplace Risks Meet Holistic Legal Solutions: One-on-One with Adam Tomiak
Legal Shifts in 2025 Put Employer Non-Compete Strategies at Risk - Employment Law This Week® - Spilling Secrets Podcast
Podcast - How Do You Define Success?
Hiring Smarter: Best Practices for Interviews: What's the Tea in L&E?
New Executive Order Targets Disparate Impact Claims Nationwide - #WorkforceWednesday® - Employment Law This Week®
Podcast - The Law as a Force for Change
Strategic HR Insights with Kelly Mitchell
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast - Episode 41: Employment & Labor Law Issues for Construction Companies with Bridget Blinn-Spears of Maynard Nexsen
Stumbling Your Way Into a Union: Key Advice for Employers: What’s the Tea in L&E?
California Employment News: Taking Advantage of the PAGA Reform – How Employers Can Lower Their Risk of PAGA Liability
(Podcast) California Employment News: Taking Advantage of the PAGA Reform – How Employers Can Lower Their Risk of PAGA Liability
AI in Employment: Navigating the Legal Landscape with Lessons from I, Robot — Hiring to Firing Podcast
Constangy Clips Ep. 9 - The Penalty Playbook: 3 Pointers for Employee Discipline
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast - Episode 39: Best Practices for Conducting RIFs and Layoffs with Jennifer Wheeler of Maynard Nexsen
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Gavels & Gowns - Enforcement on Campus: The Impact of New Immigration Priorities on Academia
On May 29, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held in Oldham v. Pennsylvania State Univ., No. 22-2056 (3d Cir. May 29, 2025) that Title IX may allow for claims by non-students and non-employees. In the...more
Two new technical-assistance documents jointly released by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) warn that common diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)-training practices —...more
Earlier this year, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (which includes North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia) issued a decision that provides employers with an important defense to some Family and Medical Leave Act...more
The Supreme Court issued several momentous decisions last term that will have a lasting impact on employer practices. The Justices continued to shape the workplace law landscape by ruling on an array of issues involving...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently held that proving an employer’s retaliatory intent is not required for whistleblowers seeking protection under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. In Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, 144 S. Ct. 445 (2024),...more
If an employer or coworker persistently uses a transgender worker’s wrong name or identified pronoun, can that constitute a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII? In Copeland v. Georgia Department of Corrections,...more
In Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC the United States Supreme Court resolved a circuit split, holding that whistleblowers asserting retaliation claims under Sarbanes-Oxley must prove protected activity was a contributing factor...more
Welcome to this edition of the FP Snapshot on workplace safety, where we take a quick snapshot look at a recent significant workplace law development that affects your safety and health programs. This edition is devoted to...more
In Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, 601 U. S. ____, 2024 WL 478566 (2024), the United States Supreme Court (Sotomayor, J.) held that whistleblowers do not need to prove their employer acted with “retaliatory intent” to be...more
On February 8, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, 601 U.S. ___(2024), a case involving a former UBS employee’s claim that he was terminated for making an internal report...more
On February 8, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) unanimously ruled in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC that employers can violate whistleblower protection statutes without evidence establishing retaliatory...more
In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the whistleblower protections of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in the case, Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC et al. (February 8, 2024). The Supreme Court’s decision reaffirms an...more
The Background: In August 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC., et al. ("Murray") that an employee suing his employer under the anti-retaliation provisions of...more
Last week in a unanimous opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that an employee who sued his former employer for retaliatory termination did not need to prove a retaliatory intent behind the decision. Murray v. UBS...more
The US Supreme Court ruled in Murray v. UBS Securities LLC that whistleblowers under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) need not prove retaliatory intent. This ruling is consistent with current precedent for Energy Reorganization...more
Outlined in part one of our series—SCOTUS Clarifies Whistleblower Claims Standard under Sarbanes Oxley—the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a federal court of appeals decision, resolving a recent federal appeals court split...more
On Feb. 8, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC that plaintiffs bringing whistleblower retaliation claims under Section 1514A of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 do not need to prove...more
On February 8, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States clarified the standard for proving causation under the whistleblower protection provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (the “Act”), easing the burden of proof employees...more
On February 8, 2024, in its Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC1 opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that a whistleblower pursuing a claim for retaliation under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”) does not need to...more
On February 8, 2024, the United States Supreme Court released a unanimous opinion confirming that a whistleblower does not need to show their employer’s actions were made with “retaliatory intent” to be protected under the...more
On February 8, 2024, the United States Supreme Court, in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, issued a decision that expands the ability of whistleblowers to seek anti-retaliation protections under federal whistleblower laws....more
The Supreme Court just rejected an employer’s argument that a whistleblower needs to show the employer acted with retaliatory intent to prove retaliation under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), a federal law that protects...more
On February 8, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, No. 22-660, holding that whistleblowers do not need to establish retaliatory intent on the part of their employers in order to prove a claim...more
Does a fired whistleblower need to show their employer acted with retaliatory intent to prove retaliation under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX)? The Supreme Court has been asked to review the standard of proof in such cases –...more
Each year seems to bring significant developments in whistleblower law, and 2023 has been no exception. As whistleblower activity increases, so, too, has the scope of its protections. From state to federal government, from...more